How environmental protection agencies can promote eco-innovation: The prospect of voluntary reciprocal legitimacy

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 129, Issue , 2018, Pages 242-253

  Ball, Chris ^a   Burt, George ^b   De Vries, Frans ^b   MacEachern, Erik ^c  

^a FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JÜLICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^c Strathallan House   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Environmental innovation; Environmental protection agencies; Sustainability; Sustainable growth; Voluntary reciprocal legitimacy

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

BUSINESS COMMUNITY; ECO-INNOVATION; ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS; MUTUAL TRUST; NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS; SUSTAINABLE GROWTH; VOLUNTARY RECIPROCAL LEGITIMACY;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INNOVATION; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 85034848322     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., Overy, P., Sustainability-oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18 (2015), 180–205.
2. Allan, C., Jaffe, A.B., Sin, I., Diffusion of green technology: a survey. Environ. Resour. Econ. 7:1 (2014), 1–33.
3. Ambec, S., Cohen, M.A., Elgie, S., Lanoie, P., The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7:1 (2013), 2–22.
4. Bansal, P., Clelland, I., Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Acad. Manag. J. 47 (2004), 93–103.
5. Berry, M.A., Rondinelli, D.A., Proactive corporate environmental management: a new industrial revolution. Acad. Manag. Exec. 12 (1998), 38–50.
6. Bioregional, One Planet Living: The Ten Principles. Available at: http://www.bioregional.com/oneplanetliving/, 2016.
7. Bray, J.N., Collaborative Inquiry in Practice: Action, Reflection, and Making Meaning. 2000, Sage.
8. Butterfield, L.D., Borgen, W.A., Amundson, N.E. et al., Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qual. Res. 5 (2005), 475–497.
9. Campbell, J.L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., Pedersen, O.K., Coding in-depth semistructured interviews? Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Reviews 42:3 (2013), 294–320.
10. Carmin, J., Darnall, N., Mil-Homens, J., Stakeholder involvement in the design of US voluntary environmental programs: does sponsorship matter?. Policy Studies Journal 31 (2003), 527–543.
11. Cashore, B., Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how non–state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance 15 (2002), 503–529.
12. Cohen, M.J., Brown, H.S., Vergragt, P., Innovations in Sustainable Consumption: New Economics, Socio-Technical Transitions and Social Practices. 2013, Edward Elgar Publishing.
13. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2000, SAGE Publications, London.
14. Eckersley, R., Ambushed: the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration's climate policy and the erosion of legitimacy. International Politics 44 (2007), 306–324.
15. Eden, S., ‘We have the facts’—how business claims legitimacy in the environmental debate. Environ. Plan. A 31 (1999), 1295–1309.
16. Environment Agency, Creating a Better Place Corporate Plan Summary 2014. 2015, UK Government, London.
17. Esty, D., Regulatory Transformation: Lessons from Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Public Adm. Rev. 76:3 (2016), 403–412.
18. EU Climate and Energy Framework, 2030, European Commision, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en, 2014.
19. Fischer, C., Parry, I.W.H., Pizer, W.A., Instrument choice for environmental protection when technological innovation is endogenous. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45 (2003), 523–545.
20. Flanagan, J.C., The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull., 51, 1954, 327.
21. Francesch-Huidobro, M., Institutional deficit and lack of legitimacy: the challenges of climate change governance in Hong Kong. Environmental Politics 21 (2012), 791–810.
22. Francesch-Huidobro, M., Lo, C.W.-H., Tang, S.-Y., The local environmental regulatory regime in China: changes in pro-environment orientation, institutional capacity, and external political support in Guangzhou. Environ. Plan. A 44 (2012), 2493–2511.
23. Franceschini, S., Pansera, M., Beyond unsustainable eco-innovation: the role of narratives in the evolution of the lighting sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 92 (2015), 69–83.
24. Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S., Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. 1981, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, US.
25. Herbert, S., Fear and loathing in the San Juan Islands: endangered orcas and the legitimacy of environmental law. Environ. Plan. A 46 (2014), 1781–1796.
26. Johnstone, N., Haščič, I., Popp, D., Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environ. Resour. Econ. 45 (2010), 133–155.
27. Kesidou, E., Demirel, P., On the drivers of eco-innovations: empirical evidence from the UK. Res. Policy 41 (2012), 862–870.
28. King, N., The qualitative research interview. Cassell, C.S,.G., (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, 1994, Sage Publications, London, 14–36.
29. Kronsell, A., Legitimacy for climate policies: politics and participation in the Green City of Freiburg. Local Environ. 18 (2013), 965–982.
30. Levinthal, D.A., March, J.G., The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 14:S2 (1993), 95–112.
31. Lim, S., Prakash, A., Voluntary regulations and innovations: the case of ISO 14001. Public Adm. Rev. 94 (2014), 233–244.
32. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985, Sage Publications, London.
33. Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., Powell, W. et al., The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 1991.
34. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 1994, Sage Publications.
35. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldaña, J., Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 2014.
36. OECD, Towards Green Growth?. 2015, OECD Publishing.
37. OECD, Green Growth Indicators 2017. 2017, OECD Publishing.
38. Oltra, V., Kemp, R., De Vries, F.P., Patents as a measure for eco-innovation. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 13:2 (2010), 130–148.
39. von Polzin, P., Flotow, P., Klerkx, L., Addressing barriers to eco-innovation: exploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional innovation intermediaries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 103 (2016), 34–46.
40. Porter, M.E., Van der Linde, C., Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harv. Bus. Rev. 73 (1995), 120–134.
41. Porter, M.E., Van der Linde, C., Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 9 (1995), 97–118.
42. Saldaña, J., The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2015, SAGE Publications.
43. Scott, W., Effectiveness of organizational effectiveness studies. Goodman, P.S., Pennings, J.M., (eds.) New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, 1977, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 63–95.
44. Seidman, I., Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. 1998, Teachers College Press, New York.
45. Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A.J., Raven, R., Experimenting for sustainability transitions: a systematic literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 2016, 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031.
46. SEPA, 21st Century Regulation: SEPA's Draft Regulatory Strategy. 2014, Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
47. SEPA, One Planet Prosperity - Our Regulatory Strategy. 2016, Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
48. Simon, H.A., Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organisation 1:1 (1972), 161–176.
49. Simon, H.A., Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2:1 (1991), 125–131.
50. Suchman, M.C., Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20:3 (1995), 571–610.
51. Symon, G., Qualitative research diaries. Symon, G.C,.C., (eds.) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research, 1998, Sage Publications, London, 94–117.
52. Tremblay, M.A., The key informant technique: a non-ethnographic application. Burgess, R.G., (eds.) Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual, 1982, Routledge, London, 98–104.
53. Uyarra, E., Shapira, P., Harding, A., Low carbon innovation and enterprise in the UK: challenges of a place-blind policy mix. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 103 (2016), 264–272.
54. Wagner, M., The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests. 2003, Centre for Sustainability Management, Luneburg.
55. Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O. et al., Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners' perspectives. Environ. Plan. A 43 (2011), 2688–2704.
56. Yin, R.K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed). 2009, Sage Ltd., London.